The Christian Bashing thred.

[Greebo]

[s]novium wrote on 06:12, 26th Dec 2004:
Surely a simple lack of belief is agnosticism, where as the firm belief that there is nothing else out there is atheism?


Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge ('one cannot know whether or not god exists')

Atheism is a lack of belief, nothing more. A minority of atheists (known as strong atheists) do go further and say 'I not only lack belief but outright deny that it's possible for any god to exist', but for the majority it's just lacking in belief.

Atheism as a word basically means 'without theism' i.e. without belief.

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Technically I suppose your definitions are correct Greebo. However, I still maintain that in common usage:

1) Atheist refers to someone who denies both the existence and the possibility of the existence of anything Divine.

2) Agnostic refers to someone who accepts the possibility of the existence of the Divine, but who refuses to commit to any belief or disbelief.

I think it's a good idea to stick with the common usage here because under your definations agnostic becomes an irrelevent term, since it would apply to everyone. No one can have the knowledge that there is a God, since to 'know' something is to have rational certainty that something is. When Christians or anyone of any faith I suppose says they 'know' God/Allah/Krishna what they mean is that they have a strong and self-justified belief... but it's not 'reasonable' in any sort of generally accepted defination of that term.

So, as you can see, by your definition we are all agnostic, unless of course you mean that an agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to have knowledge of God, and has this consideration actively in mind when choosing whether to believe or not believe? Because I can honestly say with absolute certainty that I believe in God because of events in my life and my considered opinion of the evidence... which would distinguish me from someone who thought "I can never have knowledge of God and therefore can not be certain of His existence, yet I choose to believe."

Do you see my quandry? You would call both myself and this hypothetical person agnostics, unless you only mean the second example. I, on the other hand, would refer to both myself and the hypothetical example as believers, and never as agnostics. Likewise, if someone said they could not know for sure if there were a God or not, but that they had chosen to disbelieve, I would not call that person agnostic, but rather atheist, based on their choice of belief.

[JAK]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 12:19, 26th Dec 2004:
Technically I suppose your definitions are correct Greebo. However, I still maintain that in common usage:

1) Atheist refers to someone who denies both the existence and the possibility of the existence of anything Divine.

2) Agnostic refers to someone who accepts the possibility of the existence of the Divine, but who refuses to commit to any belief or disbelief.

I think it's a good idea to stick with the common usage here because under your definations agnostic becomes an irrelevent term, since it would apply to everyone. No one can have the knowledge that there is a God, since to 'know' something is to have rational certainty that something is. When Christians or anyone of any faith I suppose says they 'know' God/Allah/Krishna what they mean is that they have a strong and self-justified belief... but it's not 'reasonable' in any sort of generally accepted defination of that term.

So, as you can see, by your definition we are all agnostic, unless of course you mean that an agnostic is someone who believes it is impossible to have knowledge of God, and has this consideration actively in mind when choosing whether to believe or not believe? Because I can honestly say with absolute certainty that I believe in God because of events in my life and my considered opinion of the evidence... which would distinguish me from someone who thought "I can never have knowledge of God and therefore can not be certain of His existence, yet I choose to believe."

Do you see my quandry? You would call both myself and this hypothetical person agnostics, unless you only mean the second example. I, on the other hand, would refer to both myself and the hypothetical example as believers, and never as agnostics. Likewise, if someone said they could not know for sure if there were a God or not, but that they had chosen to disbelieve, I would not call that person agnostic, but rather atheist, based on their choice of belief.




What about those who have had religious experiences that are of such conviction that they claim to 'know', rather than believe in the existence of ? They surely would not be classed as agnostic, if they claim to have knowledge rather than belief.

[Greebo]

Well I think your common usage definitions are wrong.

Atheist I've already defined above.

I think the common usage of agnostic means: "One who believes/thinks it is impossible to know that (a) God exists"

In that case I think you would not be classified as agnostic because you clearly believe and think God exists. I think it's therefore logical to assume that you think it is possible to know God exists.

I would classify the hypothetical person as an agnostic theist.

Then there's those like me. So far, yes I do outright deny the existance of any specific God concepts that I've learnt about, however I don't think that from that I can follow on and say I therefore outright deny all possible God concepts.
In my opinion it's rather silly to outright deny the possibility of something like this, given that we are on such a small planet in a bloody huge universe - we know so little. I can't say there is no possibility of God existing just as I equally can't say there's no possibility of a Tellytubby planet out there.

Having said that - in the course of human history I think that any God concepts that have come about, have been human made - that at least is the conclusion I've come to based on the evidence in front of me.
So unless a God concept is placed in front of me that changes my mind (or unless God appears in front of me) then I will continue to lack belief, which I think still places me under the heading of atheist.

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[sheerbrillance]

I can't believe someone is purposely trying to start a thread devoted to Christian bashing...and people actually get involved in it...it would be frowned upon if a gay bashing thread, or a Islam bashing thread was started..but not Christian...tell me if I'm wrong but people always seem to attack christians because they are the only group it seems like you can get away with attacking like this

[JAK]

[s]sheerbrillance wrote on 18:16, 26th Dec 2004:
I can't believe someone is purposely trying to start a thread devoted to Christian bashing...and people actually get involved in it...it would be frowned upon if a gay bashing thread, or a Islam bashing thread was started..but not Christian...tell me if I'm wrong but people always seem to attack christians because they are the only group it seems like you can get away with attacking like this



I can believe it, but I do think that there is an element of hypocrisy in it.

Also, a number of people got involved in it to debate the points raised in the 'bashing'.

[Greebo]

Just had a thought re: the definition of atheist/atheism.

The major problem with this is that many people who use the word put their own religious bias behind it. So many say that atheists deny any Gods, when in fact what they're saying is that they deny their particular God.

Going further, it's only relatively recently that many dictionaries got rid of definitions such as 'heathens, disbelievers etc' - definitions with a religious bias.

If you remove the religious bias and have Gods as philisophical concepts rather than anything else, then the denial definition is far too narrow.

[hr]http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Rob Hearn]

But seriously, religious people: you must know how silly faith is in this day and age. You must, deep down, even if you're afraid to admit it.

Religion, as I've said before, has its merits. While we athiests are pointing out the things that we hate, like institutional homophobia, sectarian animosity, intellectual backwardness - the list of demerits goes on and on - I've no doubt you religious can look inwards at the warm and lovely feeling that your faith gives you, and the good person it has helped you become, and dismiss our rantings. Faith does good things. This view is one-sided, but I agree wholeheartedly with anybody claiming that faith can generate lovely sentiments of which we all approve (this view being one-sided, of course, because faith also generates horrid sentiments, and turns people nasty). But even if religion had only ever contributed postively to the human cause - even if, that is, it had been religion arguing from the beginning that the earth orbits the sun, or that evolution occurs, or that homosexual sex is not immoral - we'd only have a moral case for remaining religious, not an intellectual one; intellectually it is ridiculous. Good or bad, religion, and the faith upon which it relies, is now absurd. The tide of reason has shifted to another shore, leaving the misguided fish of faith flapping on the beach, drowning in the fresh air while in the distance the rational brainy dolphins of athiesm frolic in the ocean. When science was in its infancy, the religious worldviews had a place at the table. Now, they don't. Deal with it.

[flarewearer]

[s]sheerbrillance wrote on 18:16, 26th Dec 2004:
I can't believe someone is purposely trying to start a thread devoted to Christian bashing...and people actually get involved in it...it would be frowned upon if a gay bashing thread, or a Islam bashing thread was started..but not Christian...tell me if I'm wrong but people always seem to attack christians because they are the only group it seems like you can get away with attacking like this


perhaps christian bashing is so prevelant in this country because it is the dominant religion, and is woven into law and the state etc. Christian issuses dominate a lot of our current affairs, and we live amongst christians and many in this country claim to be of said faith. Perhaps islam bashing would be the done thing if it affected out life more.

[hr]
..Abstract concepts are notoriously difficult to bomb...

[exnihilo]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 02:47, 27th Dec 2004:
But seriously, religious people: you must know how silly faith is in this day and age. You must, deep down, even if you're afraid to admit it.

Nope. Can't say I do. Sorry.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Well said exnihilo, short and too the point.

Personally, I find a blind faith in science and reason to be 'silly' as any right thinking person would, if they just admitted it to themselves.

But I'll play along, sort of. Why is it silly? So far the only arguments actually made against religion in this discussion have focused on it's negative effects in human history. However, looking at Christianity in particular, since this is a 'Christian bashing thread', the New Testament preaches a message of tolerance and brotherly love; honesty and integrity. If those virtues have been ignored by 'Christians' through the ages, that is not the fault of the religion, per se, but of those individuals.

So, ignoring the Inquisition, the Crusades, the witch burnings, etc... as aberrations from Christs message, let's talk about the belief system itself. What is so silly about it? Or, if you would prefer to speak more generally and include our religiously minded but non-Christian friends, what is so silly about religion in general that renders it ridiculous in this day and age?

After all, if, as you say, even people of faith should be able to recognise that it's silly, I'm clearly missing something, because I don't think so. Enlighten me, oh modern fellow...

[joe]

Why should the burden be on non-believers to disprove the existence of god ?(something which is clearly impossible if we accept the commonly posited attributes that it is an entity outside space/time etc- the world looks the same whether there is one or not)

It is surely sufficient to undermine belief that there is no more warrant to believe in a benevolent god than any other entity (perhaps an omnipotent tooth fairy). In fact the idea of a benevolent entity seems far less likely given the amount of unpleasantness in the world.

The prevalence of religion is understandable because of the emotional prop it provides against fear of death. But such beliefs are rationally unjustified, and so cognitively irresponsible. They are on a par with any other such beliefs you care to pick (tooth fairy).

[LonelyPilgrim]

Joe,

I'm not challenging anyone to disprove God. I'm questioning why the decision to believe in God is a) silly, and, in regards to the post I was responding to, b) what is it about this day and age that makes it particularly silly now.

It seems to me, that in order to consider religious belief 'silly' one would have to definitively disprove the existence of God. As long as the possibility for the existence of God exists, belief can hardly be considered 'silly'. Irrational, perhaps, but that does not equate will 'silly' nor does it make believers 'fools' another wonderfully helpful statement from Rob.

In fact, was it Rousseau or Voltaire (I can never remember... and it might even have been someone else, mush brush up on my philosophy) who argued that the rational thing was to believe, since if you believed and were right, you got Heaven, and if you were wrong, you would never know it. Whereas if you did not believe and were right, you would never know it, but if you were wrong, you ended up in Hell. Therefore, belief is rational. Although I've often wondered exactly how God would take to someone who believed only on these grounds...

[Marco Biagi]

It was Pascal. It's called Pascal's wager - bet on there being a god, if you're right you're going to be bloody well rewarded and if you're wrong, well, nothing will happen. Whereas if you bet on there not being a god and you're right, nothing will happen, but if you're wrong, well, burn baby burn.

Unfortunately, it only works in a universe with one religion. When you've also got to choose between religions (and damn near as many interpretations as there are people in the world), it becomes far more complicated. Since you have perhaps a 1 in a 100,000 chance (at best) of picking the right religion if all the mutually exclusive doctrines have equal possibility of accuracy, you might argue that rather than taking that 1 in a 100,000 chance of eternal salvation, you might want to not waste your time, especially since the religious equivalent of buying a lottery ticket is far more burdensome, involving regular religious observance over the whole of your life.

Imagine if you were a practising Christian all your life and after you died some giant calf god decided to send you to hell for having his effigy melted down in the Sinai - the agnostic being tortured next to you might not be having a good time either, but you would *never* hear the end of it from him/her.

[joe]

haha, hopefully boot them out of heaven- i certainly wouldn't class a place full of such cynics as 'paradise'... Wouldn't want to get through the pearly gates and find the union

[Greebo]

[s]LonelyPilgrim wrote on 16:03, 27th Dec 2004:
In fact, was it Rousseau or Voltaire (I can never remember... and it might even have been someone else, mush brush up on my philosophy) who argued that the rational thing was to believe, since if you believed and were right, you got Heaven, and if you were wrong, you would never know it. Whereas if you did not believe and were right, you would never know it, but if you were wrong, you ended up in Hell. Therefore, belief is rational. Although I've often wondered exactly how God would take to someone who believed only on these grounds...


That was Pascal - it's known as Pascal's wager.

Apart from your point that any decent God wouldn't really be happy with someone who was hedging their bets, it's also a poor argument because what if you choose to believe in the wrong god?

Edit: Buggerit - Marco beat me to it

[hr]
http://www.greebo.org.uk - Loadsa drunken photos and suchlikes.

[Rob Hearn]

Well here: in what sense is belief in God more rational than belief in, say, the tooth fairy - or in an example of my own from another thread - a group of malevolent chefs who created the world and wandered away?

A friend of mine told me that when he was a child he thought that rain was god's urine. It is of course a belief that could only be held by a child. But here's the thing: it's actually more plausible than the belief that god is omnipotent and good. One needs only to glance at the news of yesterday and today to see why.

God is above us, and large. Rain is liquid, like urine. Rain is God's urine. Begs serious questions, but okay.

God created the earth and mankind and, being omniscient, knew exactly how his creation would fare through time, including how it would feel about the earthquake that, being omniscient, he knew well would occur yesterday and kill tens of thousands of people. God is good. Hmm, one can't quite reconcile the two. You religious will no doubt give me some explanation about free will (irrelevant in the context) or a larger plan, but to anybody unfamiliar with these theological squirmings, the conclusion seems pretty clear: God is either indifferent, or cruel.

Indeed, recent events - and, hell, events throughout history - give credence to my friend's view that God is pissing on us.

Or, we can just be sensible and draw the obvious conclusion: there is no god. There is no empirical evidence for him, and events in the world entirely contradict the charactersitics ascribed to him by the major religious.

I hate this discussion. It makes me just want to shake my head. It's not that there's no god that gets me; it's that there's so blindingly, astonishingly, obviously no god. That people believe otherwise genuinely beggars my belief.

[Rob Hearn]

Well here: in what sense is belief in God more rational than belief in, say, the tooth fairy - or in an example of my own from another thread - a group of malevolent chefs who created the world and wandered away?

A friend of mine told me that when he was a child he thought that rain was god's urine. It is of course a belief that could only be held by a child. But here's the thing: it's actually more plausible than the belief that god is omnipotent and good. One needs only to glance at the news of yesterday and today to see why.

God is above us, and large. Rain is liquid, like urine. Rain is God's urine. Begs serious questions, but okay.

God created the earth and mankind and, being omniscient, knew exactly how his creation would fare through time, including how it would feel about the earthquake that, being omniscient, he knew well would occur yesterday and kill tens of thousands of people. God is good. Hmm, one can't quite reconcile the two. You religious will no doubt give me some explanation about free will (irrelevant in the context) or a larger plan, but to anybody unfamiliar with these theological squirmings, the conclusion seems pretty clear: God is either indifferent, or cruel.

Indeed, recent events - and, hell, events throughout history - give credence to my friend's view that God is pissing on us.

Or, we can just be sensible and draw the obvious conclusion: there is no god. There is no empirical evidence for him, and events in the world entirely contradict the charactersitics ascribed to him by the major religious.

I hate this discussion. It makes me just want to shake my head. It's not that there's no god that gets me; it's that there's so blindingly, astonishingly, obviously no god. That people believe otherwise genuinely beggars my belief.

[joe]

I think you make too strong assertions in the last post rob. I don't think that its blindingly obvious that there isn't any sort of god-like thing- the fact that we still have no idea about nature of reality should persuade you of this.
I don't think that it is cognitively reponsible to positively believe in christian 'god', but i don't think any answers in this area are blindingly obvious.

[novium]

[s]Rob Hearn wrote on 19:22, 27th Dec 2004:
You religious will no doubt give me some explanation about free will (irrelevant in the context) or a larger plan, but to anybody unfamiliar with these theological squirmings, the conclusion seems pretty clear: God is either indifferent, or cruel.




You claim the religious are irrational, but you refuse to enter into debate. You ask the question and then dismiss the answer, forcing some false conclusion (that of "there is no other conclusion) of your own. How are you ANY different than the religious fundies/bigots that I have had the misfortune of encountering? Your tone and meaning are the same, the same damn "holier-than-thou" attitude; all that changes are the terms.